An undemocratic God

[molotovcocktail]

In our modern and "democratic" society, we still embrace the idea of an authority that is endlessly careful, but shows it in mysterious ways. We are not supposed to understand it, not even question it. We are intended to be happy what ever this leader do, even if he kills people in close family. This idea is highly undemocratic, since a society based on an unquestionable authority is not a democratic society. In other words, the christian God i an undemocratic God.

[Kamos]

Indeed. While I'm willing to give the right of religious freedom to anyone, the Abrahamic religions are so reactionary that I really am amazed that someone can be a Christian (or Muslim) and a communist at the same time. I suppose it's because people sometimes have a hard time breaking from what they were indoctrinated with from their birth.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Which is why we should all embrace dialectical materialism.:thumbup1:

[The Jay]

Indeed. While I'm willing to give the right of religious freedom to anyone, the Abrahamic religions are so reactionary that I really am amazed that someone can be a Christian (or Muslim) and a communist at the same time. I suppose it's because people sometimes have a hard time breaking from what they were indoctrinated with from their birth.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

[molotovcocktail]

, the Abrahamic religions are so reactionary that I really am amazed that someone can be a Christian (or Muslim) and a communist at the same time. Even more amazing are those that are christian and anarchist at the same time.
Religion is the opium of the masses, it have been used for making the workers accepting repression for centuries.

[NGNM85]

'Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.'
-Emma Goldman, 'Anarchism: What it Really Stands For'

[NGNM85]

Which is why we should all embrace dialectical materialism.:thumbup1:

That would just be trading one brand of irrationality for another.

[tir1944]

That would just be trading one brand of irrationality for another.
Ohh la la!!

Also time for some obligatory 1984 quotes...anyone?

[Revolution starts with U]

"Parsons was Winston's fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms-one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended."

[ComradeMan]

In our modern and "democratic" society, we still embrace the idea of an authority that is endlessly careful, but shows it in mysterious ways. We are not supposed to understand it, not even question it. We are intended to be happy what ever this leader do, even if he kills people in close family. This idea is highly undemocratic, since a society based on an unquestionable authority is not a democratic society. In other words, the christian God i an undemocratic God.

So basically you arrive from all the ills of society, ignoring any concept of free will, to suddenly declare that G-d is undemocratic.... even though G-d does not really form part of the demos. :rolleyes:

[molotovcocktail]

So basically you arrive from all the ills of society, ignoring any concept of free will, to suddenly declare that G-d is undemocratic.... even though G-d does not really form part of the demos.
___
You really missed my point. I meant that the idea of an almighty creature, with actions that the people(demos) cannot understand, is and an idea that involves the people(demos) to blindly obey this almighty creature. And blind obeying of an authority is undemocratic.

So basically you arrive from all the ills of society, ignoring any concept of free will I never said anything about keeping people from being religious. Don`t make up statements, it is an classic suppression technique.

[ComradeMan]

You really missed my point. I meant that the idea of an almighty creature, with actions that the people(demos) cannot understand, is and an idea that involves the people(demos) to blindly obey this almighty creature. And blind obeying of an authority is undemocratic.
I never said anything about keeping people from being religious. Don`t make up statements, it is an classic suppression technique.

Whatever..... seems like materialists blaming what they don't believe in for their material problems that are caused by the materialistic exigencies of the material world... :confused:

[molotovcocktail]

Whatever..... seems like materialists blaming what they don't believe in for their material problems that are caused by the materialistic exigencies of the material world...
Right....so i am a materialist now, according to somebody that is restricted.:rolleyes:

[kapitalyst]

In our modern and "democratic" society, we still embrace the idea of an authority that is endlessly careful, but shows it in mysterious ways. We are not supposed to understand it, not even question it. We are intended to be happy what ever this leader do, even if he kills people in close family. This idea is highly undemocratic, since a society based on an unquestionable authority is not a democratic society. In other words, the christian God i an undemocratic God.

This is a distortion of Christianity itself, but you're pretty close to describing religious fundamentalism...

My views are totally different. God doesn't kill anyone or interfere with our affairs all. That would be contradictory to everything. God is, instead, more of an "architect"... almost like a computer programmer. God essentially "wrote" the universe in his own programming language: physics. God simply planted the seed... the universe we know was born in the "Big Bang" and everything has unfolded by completely natural means. God would never need to interfere in the universe or the affairs of humans. That would imply that a mistake was made and God isn't God. No, we were given free will and given the opportunity to shape our own lives and our world. :)

[ComradeMan]

Right....so i am a materialist now, according to somebody that is restricted.:rolleyes:

:laugh:Do you know what materialist in a leftist sense means? It's more likely that a restricted person would be less of a materialist in a leftist sense at RevLeft, isn't it? But that's not the argument and when your retort relies on circumstancial ad hominems you've blown your point.... :rolleyes:

Try again....:thumbup1:

[$lim_$weezy]

Kapitalyst: Ignoring the things it would be fruitless to argue about, I believe a more important point is God deciding what is right or wrong. Do you believe in any consequences brought on by moral or immoral action, in this life or the supposed afterlife? The idea that God is an absolute being, and we humans are unable to influence his decisions (because then he wouldn't be "perfect") is, I think, the point of the thread.

[molotovcocktail]

[QUOTE The idea that God is an absolute being, and we humans are unable to influence his decisions (because then he wouldn't be "perfect") is, I think, the point of the thread.[/QUOTE]
Yes that was my point.

[Veovis]

The gods are myths used to scare children and people who think like children.

Unfortunately, the concept is very real and it conveniently plays into maintaining state power.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Indeed. While I'm willing to give the right of religious freedom to anyone, the Abrahamic religions are so reactionary that I really am amazed that someone can be a Christian (or Muslim) and a communist at the same time.

Really? It's quite easy.


I suppose it's because people sometimes have a hard time breaking from what they were indoctrinated with from their birth.

Despite being born a Muslim I am in no way 'indoctrinated' by Islam and I believe it based upon my own personal experinces and philosophical positions.

I do not understand why Atheists or anti-whatevers always make the assumption that because I am a Muslim or Theist I must of course be indoctrinated, delusional, irrational, etc. perhaps it's very convienant for you.


Which is why we should all embrace dialectical materialism.:thumbup1:

Diamat is a mental disorder.


'Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.'
-Emma Goldman, 'Anarchism: What it Really Stands For'

Inane.


You really missed my point. I meant that the idea of an almighty creature, with actions that the people(demos) cannot understand, is and an idea that involves the people(demos) to blindly obey this almighty creature. And blind obeying of an authority is undemocratic.

God is God, following the definition of God, the idea of God, everything that God is and isn't, it would seem absurd that humans by whatever name anyone wishes to call them, would understand the actions of God; we are not God and thus we will not know what God knows otherwise we would in fact be above our station and be on the same level of God which would render the definition of such a creature meaningless. I fail to see why this would in any way imply what you seem to think it does.


I never said anything about keeping people from being religious. Don`t make up statements, it is an classic suppression technique.

It's all a conspiracy, you're right, if I had it my way, you'd be in my office.


The gods are myths used to scare children and people who think like children.


Ironically, this is a very juvenile statement in and off itself.

Why are all these 'fuck God' threads inherently so bloody lame?

[$lim_$weezy]

This mystical "otherness" (we're not God so we can't question him!) mentality is the whole point. The untouchability, the necessarily undemocratic nature of this is what is being discussed. I fail to see why you don't draw this conclusion. It seems your response has just been an affirmation of this anti-democratic view, of humanity's "place" below God. How is this democratic, exactly?

[Kamos]

I do not understand why Atheists or anti-whatevers always make the assumption that because I am a Muslim or Theist I must of course be indoctrinated, delusional, irrational, etc. perhaps it's very convienant for you.

Religion is irrational. We can, for the most part, explain what's happening on Earth without a God to fall back upon. Our ideology itself rejects any masters - we're our own masters, so to say.


Inane.

Elaborate.


God is God, following the definition of God, the idea of God, everything that God is and isn't, it would seem absurd that humans by whatever name anyone wishes to call them, would understand the actions of God; we are not God and thus we will not know what God knows otherwise we would in fact be above our station and be on the same level of God which would render the definition of such a creature meaningless. I fail to see why this would in any way imply what you seem to think it does.

So tell me, why do you believe in God then? You don't even know what he/she is like!


Why are all these 'fuck God' threads inherently so bloody lame?

There is nothing lame about this thread other than that fact that it's 90% preaching to the choir.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

This mystical "otherness" (we're not God so we can't question him!) mentality is the whole point.

It has nothing to do with questioning, sure, we can speculate, why not but by the very definition and nature of Deity it would be impossible to understand or 'know' what God knows.


I fail to see why you don't draw this conclusion.

At best it seems flawed.



It seems your response has just been an affirmation of this anti-democratic view, of humanity's "place" below God.


I'm sorry that I understand that God (creator) would naturally be 'above' humanity (creature).


How is this democratic, exactly?

The very fact that God or Deity is being deemed "undemocratic," or even "democratic," for that matter seems absurd. Deity transcends such concepts.

[molotovcocktail]

The very fact that God or Deity is being deemed "undemocratic," or even "democratic," for that matter seems absurd. Deity transcends such concepts.
Democracy is a concept of rulers, that is being elected by the ruled. The ruled choose their rulers, a deity is almighty and rule over humans. If humans could choose him, he would not be almighty.

[ComradeMan]

Democracy is a concept of rulers, that is being elected by the ruled. The ruled choose their rulers, a deity is almighty and rule over humans. If humans could choose him, he would not be almighty.

I guess life is pretty undemocratic, I did not choose to be born, I did not choose to be human, I did not choose to have pre-programmed obsolence and death as my only guarantee from birth, I did not choose to be dependent on oxygen.... Damn, nature itself, the world, is............... undemocratic therefore.

[kapitalyst]

Democracy is a concept of rulers, that is being elected by the ruled. The ruled choose their rulers, a deity is almighty and rule over humans. If humans could choose him, he would not be almighty.

Rulers being elected by the ruled is actually a republic...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Democracy is a concept of rulers, that is being elected by the ruled.

Democracy is a human concept that is based upon the socio-political relations of humans and other humans; that's what democracy is.

[$lim_$weezy]

The fact that God is not human does not fundamentally change the relationship of ruler and ruled, except in the fact that, as you put it, we cannot sensibly question the ruler or understand him.

ComradeMan: Indeed, life is greatly undemocratic. Our goal, in certain situations, should be to remedy this.

[ComradeMan]

ComradeMan: Indeed, life is greatly undemocratic. Our goal, in certain situations, should be to remedy this.

So, you have a remedy for life?

Blaming G-d is lame...

[$lim_$weezy]

Life consists of events that may or may not be democratic to some degree. If we make more of them more democratic, we have made life as a whole more democratic, no?

Regardless, that was just a response to what you said about life being undemocratic. While I do not like the idea of an undemocratic god, that in itself is admittedly not an argument for or against said god's existence. That's not really what this argument is about, though.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

The fact that God is not human does not fundamentally change the relationship of ruler and ruled

Yeah, it actually kind of does.



except in the fact that, as you put it, we cannot sensibly question the ruler or understand him.


What is all of this 'questioning' business?

Where did I say you aren't to or can not question? I said, sure you, you can question, why not but ultimately it seems futile to ascertain anything in any real sense given the definition and nature of Deity. I don't understand why anti-Theists craft this "oh we can't question anything, we're thought criminals, yada yada yada."

[$lim_$weezy]

Hence why I said "sensibly question".

Let me sum this up: you say not that God is democratic, but that it somehow doesn't make sense to apply the concept of democracy or non-democracy to a deity?

Anyway, arguing at this point has kind of become useless...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Let me sum this up: you say not that God is democratic, but that it somehow doesn't make sense to apply the concept of democracy or non-democracy to a deity?

Indeed in the same manner that existance/non-existance wouldn't apply to God and that God transcends such concepts. These are human concepts applied and constrained to our own material world/universe and existance.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not that simple. God isn't supposed to be simply some bloke in the sky external to us and dictating things to us, like some sort of tyrant, but rather to be the universal subject in which we are submerged. As such, the discussion of 'democracy' here is rather wide of the mark, because, as said, God is not part of the demos, and not indeed something separate from us dictating to us from outside. Such discussions of democracy at a base level are also inapplicable to capital qua alienated human labour, incidentally.

Of course, it could make sense to comment that God is in fact posited as a being above humanity despite being simply a human power elevated into an autonomous force, but discussions of democracy and dictatorship and how dictatorial God is miss the point, and indeed insofar as a God is admitted it can just as much be derived that God is, far from being unfreedom, true freedom, a view which can only be critiqued if one takes a humanist, materialist philosophical stance from the get-go rather than presupposing a God and all that goes with it at the beginning of your argument. Such a description of God in terms of a subject-predicate inversion makes sense only as an account of idealism and its process of argumentation from a materialist standpoint, not as a critique of God from within a paradigm where God exists or can exist, in which case it's nonsense. For an idealist, God is freedom, and given that a God generally presupposes idealism, the idealist process and the fact that God is true freedom is in fact contained within the concept itself, and hence if one doesn't criticize the whole foundation one can't criticize the seventh floor.


I guess life is pretty undemocratic, I did not choose to be born, I did not choose to be human, I did not choose to have pre-programmed obsolence and death as my only guarantee from birth, I did not choose to be dependent on oxygen.... Damn, nature itself, the world, is............... undemocratic therefore.
Well, yes, I suppose that you could say that calling God undemocratic is a bit like saying that matter is undemocratic, insofar as God is identified with substance in both a physical and mental sense.

[$lim_$weezy]

This is a very mystical and obscurantist conception of God, something I was unaware I was dealing with.

Does God then have a will in any sense that we can understand? Does this view of God even hold that God is a conscious being in any meaningful sense? If God is mystically "within us", or we are "submerged" in God, as you say, yet God is still a Will in some sense, it seems that it is still "undemocratic", or at least we are subordinate to God without a say in the matter. I believe this is the difference between saying matter is undemocratic and God is undemocratic. Both are technically true, but it makes sense to say it about God because God provides instructions in some way, typically moral.

We could call the bourgeoisie undemocratic and that would make sense. I'm not following how the argument is inapplicable to God. I don't see how presupposing the existence of a God defines God as freedom. If it does, it is a very different freedom (I would say a different concept altogether) than what I understand by the term.

I don't really follow this freedom argument, so I can't rightly respond to it.

If I totally missed your point, forgive me. Your viewpoint is incredibly obscure.

[tradeunionsupporter]

God is a Dictator.